SO prevalent is old Adam ( since our primitive apostacy ) in the hearts of the best , that we finde it very hard to contend for the Faith in any particular , without the breach of Love and Charity : I wish it were not so between Mr. Humphrey and my selfe . Standers-by usually see more then Gamesters ; and sorry I am to see and hear , that any passionate expressions on my part , or bitter scoffs falling from Mr. Humphrey his pen , on the other part , should contribute more to pierce the hearts of any of Gods precious ones with griefe , than the managing of this controversy on either hand , hath contributed to satisfie their judgments and consciences by solid conviction . If in heat of dispute I have any way transgressed ( I am assured I was far from malice ) I shall be ready to throw the first stone at my selfe , and blesse God who hath given me the opportunity to mend first , which once was in Mr. Humphrey his hands , before he put forth his Rejoynder . Some sores are better cured by lenitives then by corrosives .

Passing therefore his reflections upon my selfe , in a great part of his Preamble , as extrinsecall to the matter in debate , I observe page 5. and believe he speaks in good earnest , That unlesse his Latitude of Admission be allowed , tender consciences can never have solid peace at the Sacrament : Sacraments will still be neglected by Ministers and People , separations fomented , human Forms set up as necessary , &c. Ans. If this hypothesis were true , and such inferences did naturally and necessarily flow from our principles , well might we be at a stand , and look with a more favourable eye upon Mr. Humphrey his principles and practice . Scruples may possibly be raised in tender consciences , and false conclusions inferred by mistake , &c but far is it from us to hold forth any such principle , or principles as of their own nature have any aptitude to stumble the weak , or offend Christs little ones : And this I hope by Gods assistance to make out in the following discourse , as the forementioned particulars shall come to be scanned in their proper places . Page 6. He thinks me very for : ward to be known among the Elders in the Gate - and , Charges me for passing sentence before conviction . Ans. Had Mr. Humphrey known how oft I was solicited to write , how unwilling I was to have my name appear either in the frontispice or otherwhere in the book after it was finished , he would not have passed so rash a censure : had I not been acted more by conscience of my duty , then by desire of vain-glory , it might have been long enough ere so poor an inconsiderable person as my selfe had took him to task . For his second charge , I hope Mr. Humphrey doth not imagine I made the Title Page first , and my Answer afterwards ; and for a due Examen , let the Answer it selfe speak , whether I took not some pains ( according to my poor modell ) in order to his conviction , before I passed a publick sentence : The cause indeed may suffer much by my weakness , but I hope it neither then did , nor now shall , suffer by my wilfull negligence . Page 7th . he spends , in indeavouring to excuse those harsh expressions I noted and represented as savouring more of pride then of humility , contrary to his profession in the frontispice ; and that first , by begging pardon , if any pious men are offended at those expressions . 2ly . By professing , that to his utmost memory , none of those passages came from him , with the least reflection upon any . Ans. Taking it for granted , Mr. Humphrey speaks the truth , I believe it 's the best Apologie he could make : Yet secondly , Mr. Humphrey cannot blame me for charging those expressions with pride and censoriousnesse , since verba are indices mentis ; and if proud and censorious words do not argue pride , acting ( though not alwaies raigning ) in the heart , I know not what doth . Let the Reader peruse those expressions of Mr. Humphrey in the third and fourth pages of my Bar to free Admission and if I have past a wrong sentence , let him judge mee for Pride and Censoriousnesse .

Page 8 Mr. Humphrey charges me with a contradiction , as if I had said in one place , Christ cannot give Judas the Sacrament , and in another , he cannot deny it him . Ans. pag. 8. I onely bring Arguments to prove Judas did not receive the Sacrament . Page 9. I say , it was not sit Christ should be both judge and witnesse . And page 11. Christ acting as a Minister , could not be both witnesse , Judge , and Executioner . Where , I pray , is the contradiction ? Let Mr. Humphrey produce but one place where I say , Chirst cannot give Judas the Sacraments . I bring arguments indeed to prove Iudas did not receive , but whither Christ denyed him the Sacrament , or ordered it in providence Iudas should go out be forehand , and so misse of the Sacrament ; that is left in medio , and the latter seems more probable . And whether Iudas received or not , it is not much materiall for Mr. Humphrey his cause , no not in Mr. Timsons judgement , in his bar to free admission removed . pag. 3. & 4. though otherwise a great friend to Mr. Humphrey his Latitude for Sacramentall receiving .

In answering my 2d . Argument against Iudas his receiving , he saies Christ died for the sins of the whole world , and so for Judas , 1 Iohn 2. 3.

As . When Mr. H. can prove that by whole world , There , are meant the Reprobate as well as the Elect , he saies somthing indeed to invalidate the argument ; otherwise he doth but shuflle . And the Sacrament had been a poor Cordial to the Apostles , had it seal'd no more to them than it doth to Reprobates . But I shall not trouble my self or my Reader with the further vindication of those five Arguments here , as studying all possible brevity and judging it not material in this businesse , whether Judas received or no , what ever weight Mr. Humphrey may lay upon it . But whereas pag. 10. He saies , I answer those five reasons my self . In that he mistakes . I brought indeed five reasons to prove Judas did not receive ; but I brought no reason to prove Christ denied him the Sacrament , nor do I believe Christ did deny him the Sacrament Only by laying open his wickednessc , its probable Christ did either shame him away , or fright him away , or occasion his going away in a pet ; and Judas being gone , Christ spake very comfortably , and applicatorily to the Eleven , which very probably he would not have done without a distinction , had the Traytor been present .

Pag. 10. 11. He saies , Many more Authors are of opinion , Judas did receive it , than those I produced out of Gelaspi to the contrary . Answ . 1. This is said ; but not one word of proof brought by Mr. Humphrey . 2. Grant it true , he answers himself , or I may answer him with his own words , I do not value them at the rate of Scripture . It s well , we both agree here : I wish heartily all Disputers were of this mind . Here therefore Mr. Humphrey presseth Mark 14. 23. They all drank of it . I answered , All is put for all present , and twelve for eleven , from 1 Cor. 15. 5. To this Mr. Humphrey returns , pag. 11. If All be put for All present , then is it put for the whole twelve , for the twelve sate down with him , Ans. 1. The weaknesse of this answer of Mr. Humphrey will easily appeare to a mean capacity . The twelve sate down with Christ , ergo the twelve ( that is , every of the twelve ) received the Lords supper . To make out his assertion , he must prove not only that all the twelve sate down together , but that they also stayed all the whiletogether til the Comon-supper , the Passover , and the Lords Supper were ended . Doth it follow because twelve sit down together at a Feast , therefore they must needs all sit at Table together , or be present in the same room til all the Courses be served ? we grant Judas was present at the Common-supper ; haply also he received the Passover , which yet some doubt ; but doth it hence follow , that he was present at the Lords supper also ? Is it not said that upon the receiving of the Sop , immediatly Judas went out ? John 13. 30. and that Sop he received at or before the Passover ; after which , the Lords Supper was instituted and administred .

To my second , That twelve is here put for eleven , He answers , None that can tell twenty will believe me . Ans. 1. Let Mr. H. remember his own rule , & a good rule , and stand to the judgement of the Scripture , 1 Cor. 15. 5. Christ after his resurrection appeared to the twelve , but Judas was at this time dead , and Matthias was not yet chosen in his room ; Ergo , here twelve is put for eleven . Secondly , this is ordinary , for roundnesse of number : yea in this very case , Mar. 14. 17. twelve are put for ten , since two of the Apostles he sent before to prepare the Passover ver. 16. and , at the evening , himselfcomes with ten of them , who yet verse 17. are said to be twelve .

Mr. Humphrey proceeds . Pag. 11. His argument is this . Because twelve is put for eleven when there were but eleven , therfore twelve must be put for eleven , where there was twelve .

Ans. What is this but a meer begging of the Question ? Mr. Humphrey asserts that all the twelve received the Lords Supper . I answer , it s not affirm'd in Scripture , that the twelve received . 2. Had it been affirmed yet twelve might be put for eleven by roundnesse of number , as in the former instance ; to which his finall answer is , I , but there were twelve there , which is the very question in dispute between us . By the Law of dispute ( he being opponent , and I respondent ) he ought to solve my distinction ; and not barely to say , but to clear it , that twelve in the businesse of the Lords Supper cannot be understood or taken for eleven by roundnesse of number .

I shall ever acknowledge the force of St. Luke , as of every other Scripture : but I deny that Luke saies , either in terms or by consequence that Iudas was present at , or received the Lords Supper , and therefore as yet neither my five Arguments nor 26. Authors are confuted by St. Luke . See Mr. Collins more to this purpose in his vindic . suspensionis &c. pag. 62. 63. True , Luke mentions per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those words of our Saviour : But behold the hand of him that betrayeth me , is with me on the Table , after the Celebration of the Supper ; doth it therefore follow they were uttered in that order ? I have proved the contrary by comparing the two other Evangelists . I shall instance in another Hysterology , wherein the order is inverted by Saint Luke , yet without any prejudice to the truth , Matth. 4. 8. The temptation to worship the Devill , is the third and last , which yet Luke makes to be the second and middlemost , Luke 4. 5. In like manner Matthew mentions the prediction of Peters denying Christ , after their going to the mount of Olives , Matth. 26. verse 30 34. so doth Mark , Chap. 14. verse 26-30 . which yet Luke mentions before it , Chap. 22. verse 34-39 . as also doth Saint John , Chap. 13. verse 38. compared with Chap. 18. verse 1. Here then , in two of the Evangelists , there must needs be an Hysterology , without any prejudice to the truth of the narrative ; and why not in our businesse also ? We deny not but those words , Behold the hand , &c. were spoken at the Table ; but it lies upon Mr. Humphrey to prove , that it was the Lords Table at that time , when our Saviour uttered those words : We believe it was first a Common Table ; secondly , the Paschall Table ; thirdly , the Lords Table ; and that those words were spoken by our Saviour when it was a Common Table , or a Paschall Table , but not when it was the Lords Table ; and withall , that Luke attended not so much upon the order , as the truth of the narrative .

But , suppose Judas was present and received , what doth this advantage Mr. Humphrey He thinks much , because neither Christ nor his Apostles did examine Judas , &c. Ans. The Apostles ( upon supposition of Judas his receiving ) were but his fellow communicants ; nor do we think it necessary that fellow communicants should examine one another before receiving . And for our blessed Saviour ; it followes not , because he thought it not necessary then to examine the Apostles , therefore it is not necessary for Church-Officers to examine the people before receiving : Yea , as Mr. Collins well notes , in his Vindiciae suspensionis , &c. page 41. & 53. It is worth the observing , that Christ did not so much as call upon the Jewes in the same house , to receive the Lords Supper ; which he would have done probably , if he had intended it for All ; or , for a converting Ordinance . Christ thought it not necessary then to admit either ordinary Christians or Women to the Lords Supper , or to put the Apostles upon selfe-examination before the Lords Supper at this time ; is it therefore now not necessary that the people , and particularly women , should be admitted to the Lords Supper ? or , is it not necessary a man should examine himselfe before he eat , & c ? Must Church Officers give an account of their people to God , and must they not take an account of their people ?

I added further , That as Judas was not suspected by the rest of the Apostles , so he had not yet actually betrayed Christ , and it is absurd to punish any for a future sin .

To this Mr. Humphrey opposeth an other passage of mine , page 102. and then infers , Christ may not keep away Judas , because he had not actually betrayed him ; but Mr. Drake must needs keep men away , for fear they should betray him . Ans. 1. Let the Reader take notice , that Mr. Humphrey wrongs my Text , page 102. by leaving out a very materiall part of it ; the words are these , We keep men away , to prevent certain scandall , by the admission of Persons visibly unworthy : Which last words of my Text he utterly omits , that thereby my sense may appear more ugly : But those words being added , there is no contradiction betwixt Christs practice and ours ( upon the supposition that Judas did receive ) since Judas was not visibly unworthy to Christ as a Man or Minister , but as God ; who knew both Judas and other hypocrites from the beginning , Iohn 6. 64. yet admitted them as Disciples : Yet , it followes not thence , the Church should admit such before it have good satisfaction ( at least , in the judgment of charity ) about their sincere conversion ; otherwise the Disciples did ill to be so shy of Saul , till they had good evidence of his sincerity from Barnabas , Acts 9. 26 27. Christ as God , knew by knowledge of vision , who were unclean and defiled the Temple : yet , he drove none out , but such as visibly defiled it , Iohn 2. 15. So he knew Iudas was unworthy by his divine Omniscience , but acted not by vertue of that knowledge in point of suspension : Nor was Achan censured upon divine discovery , till clear evidence of his theft was produced , Iosh. 7. verse 20. to 24. And if Christs rule of suspension , or other censure , be visible unworthiness , we hope our way and practice is not contradictory to Christs rule . 2. We keep not any away barely upon fear , lest they should betray Christ ( for this fear and jealousie we may have of divers whom we admit ) but , 1. Because they are visibly unworthy . 2. That we may in the use of Gods means , endeavour their fitting against the next Sacrament , and they who upon this account withdraw , suspend themselves , as refusing the Ordinance of the Lords Supper , rather then they will accept of it upon a most equall and honourable condition . Had Mr. Humphrey been as zealous against selfe-suspension , as against Ministeriall suspension , and shewed the people their sin in standing out against Sacramentall tryall , he might have brought God more honour , himselfe more peace , and have done the Church more service , than by aspersing Sacramentall Tryall , as if the end of it were rather to exclude men from , then to fit them for , the Sacrament . Whereas therefore Mr. Humphrey is pleased to say , Page 13. that I suspend , to prevent the sin men have not committed , and that the supposal only of future sin is the very ground of my excommunication . I am sorry to see him byassed by so much uncharitablenesse , when as he knowes , that in these censures we proceed by the rule of visible unworthinesse ; and doth oppose with might and main our acting in these kinds by the rule of visibility . We aim indeed at the preventing of sin , in this and other Church-censures ; but , I dare appeal to Mr. Humphrey his conscience , whether that be our sole End .

The following passage is sadder , and chargeth us deeply , as if we gave more power to the Presbytery in point of suspension , then to Jesus Christ the great Master of Discipline .

Ans. I am sorry to see what prejudice and uncharitablenesse will draw men upon , to wrest such false and odious conclusions from , or put such uncouth interpretations upon , our principles . Far be it from us to offer wittingly to detract the least tittle from our blessed Lords authority and soveraignty ; we would loath our own principles , could any such conclusion be justly deduced from them . My words which he wrests to that purpose , are these , Page 9. f. Christ here acting as a Minister , it was not fit he should be both judge and witnesse ; and it might have been an ill president for Ministers , to take upon them by their own power to deny the Sacrament judicially to whom they please . Christ had a three fold power : 1. Absolute , as God . 2. Mediatory , as God-Man . 3. Pastorall , as a Minister . Now my former assertion ( which he carps at ) meddles not with Christs power as God , or as Mediator ( neither are they any presidents or rules for our imitation ) but only with Christs power as a Minister . And if Mr. Humphrey be of the minde , that Christ as a Minister ( waving his Divine and Mediatory capacity ) might alone be Judge and Witnesse , and suspend judicially whom he pleased , must he not of necessity also yield , that any other particular Minister may do the like ? See what a dust is raised to make our waies and principles odious ; whereas Mr. Humphrey himselfe ( if he will speak religion and reason ) cannot but be of our minde : yea , Mr. Timson , his cordiall Abettor , laies it down as a solid principle , Page 67. f. That no single Pastor alone , but such as are so in Association , as to derive authority from the whole , can exercise Church-censures authoritatively . Yet I hope Mr. Humphrey will not thence conclude , that Mr. Timson by this assertion gave more power to the Presbytery then to Jesus Christ , the great Master of Discipline .

To what further I add , page 9 , 10. That none are suspended by us , but such as suspend themselves , by sleighting or refusing due tryall ; Mr. Humphrey replies , Suppose a religious man , nay , suppose twenty , upon grounds of conscience or prudence , will not submit to his tryall , yet offer themselves at the Sacrament ; dare he refuse to administer it to them ? Alas Sir ! will you not let men serve God , and save their souls ?

Ans. Suppose a godly Minister ; nay , suppose twenty , upon grounds of conscience and prudence dare not admit such a person or persons ; yet beseech them , as they tender the honour of God , reformation of the Church , and their own comfort and edification before they receive , to give an account of their faith and hope that is in them , will they refuse so easy and honourable a duty ? & yet tempt , yea , presse him or them against the rules of conscience and prudence , to admit them to the Sacrament ? Alas Sirs , do not thus wound the consciences , and grieve the Spirits of those whom God hath set over you .

D. Dr. Secondly , Besides the former , we suspend none but such , who upon tryall , are found unworthy .

Mr. Humphr . But I pray , have you any thing at first to alledge against them : if you have not , how will you bring them to tryall ?

Ans. 1. From Scripture evidence and experience , that many Church-members are unworthy . 2. From the Scriptures warranting an universall tryall , upon lesse ground of suspition then we have , and punishing the neglect thereof ; witnesse Achans case , Iosh. 7. 3. From the fruit of this tryall , which being rightly managed , will prejudice none , but edifie all , by putting them upon the exercise of , or seeking after , knowledge and grace .

Mr. Humphr . If they come willingly , and you finde them unfit , then you go about to punish again them for a future sin .

Ans. 1. If the prevention of future sin be a punishment , the Lord send me store of such punishments . 2. He mistakes : we go not about to punish any for a future sin , but to prepare all for a future mercy . 3. He may as well say , pious Governours of families , and Ministers in the times of the Prelates , punished children and servants , because they kept them from the Sacrament till they were fitted by Catechisticall tryall . Gal. 6. 6. the Apostle will tell him , that every Church-member is a Catechumenus . Nor need Mr. Humphrey here flie especially upon the tryall by Elders , since both this paragraph and his whole discourse , manifest him to be against all tryall , either by Ministers or Elders .

D. Dr. None of the Apostles were ignorant or scandalous , no , not Judas himselfe , therefore his or their receiving is no warrant for any ignorant or scandalous person to receive .

Mr. Humph. This is not true for indeed we shall finde both ignorance in the Apostles , and scandall in Judas : The Apostles were ignorant of Christs Death and Resurrection , and of the Sacrament ; and Judas had made his bargain to betray Christ .

Ans. 1. They knew Christ to be the Bread and Water of Life , and the Saviour of the World , Iohn 6. 68 , 69. Secondly , had as much knowledge as might stand with grace . Thirdly , were willing upon all occasions to be further instructed and Catechised by Christ . And we trust Mr. Humphrey shall never be able to charge us with keeping any away who are of this temper . As for Iudas , though he had made his bargain of betraying Christ , yet it was not then scandalous : Nor did Christ ( though he knew it well enough ) discover , that Iudas had made any such bargain , but did only foretell that Iudas would betray him . However therefore pag. 15 , & 16. he is pleased to charge me as speaking a very untruth ; a grain of charity might have informed him , that Iudas ( however he purposed , plotted and contracted , all which he knows , or may know , I believe as well as himself ) yet betrayed not Christ , as to the Execution , till he kissed him in the Garden . True , in Gods account a purpose , plot and contract of evil is an Execution thereof : but civill and Ecclesiasticall Courts proceed usually by evidence of the fact , not of the purpose , plot or contract . I might adde that Iohn 13. ver. 18 , 19 , 21. 27. our blessed Saviour ( even after the discovery ) looks at Iudas his betraying him as a future act . In some sense therefore , it is a truth that Iudas had not betrayed Christ . And if so , then I did not speak a very untruth , in saying Iudas had not yet betrayed Christ , no more then Peter had denied him , understanding it of the ultimate and compleating act of his Treachery , which Christ endeavourd to prevent by the Commination , as well as Peters denyall by the Premonition . Besides , our Saviours dispensation here was extraordinary , admitting onely men , Ministers , Apostles , and that without self-examination foregoing , which is no rule for our imitation in point of Sacramentall admittance ; no more is his admittance of Iudas , supposing he did receive ; And if this supposition fail , where is Master Humphrey his superstructure upon it ?

His upbraiding me again , by comparing Christ with the Presbytery , hath been formerly answered : Which therefore , with other passages of lesse moment , for brevities sake I passe . I shall onely adde this , Iudas his treachery ( if it were , before the compleating of it , matter for a Judiciall cognizance , and if Christs extraordinary knowledge and discovery of it were legall evidence , as Mr. Humphrey would ●ave it ) was a just ground of excommunication ; yet our Saviour did not excommunicate him for it , no more then he did suspend him ; nor did he send to the High Priests or their officers for evidence against Iudas : May not the Church therefore excommunicate or seek for evidence against scandalous or suspected persons ? Even before this , all judgment was committed to Christ , Iohn 5. 22. yet we read not that Christ judged any , either Civilly or Ecclesiastically , but rather the quite contrary , Iohn 8. 11 , & 12. 47. Doth it therefore follow that either the Magistrate , or the Presbytery do lift up themselves above Christ the great Master of Discipline , because they undertake that , both in Civill and Ecclesiasticall Judgement , which our blessed Lord would not meddle withall in his State of humiliation ?